M/S. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, HISAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

section 40A(7) of the Act and c) Rs. 5,91,106/-; addition on account of disallowance of additional depreciation on computer software 3. Simultaneously, penalty proceeding u/s 271

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DEEPALI DESIGN & EXHIBITS, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Central Circle-17 Vs. M/S Deepali Designs & Exhibits 9, 1St Floor, Behind Punjab Room No. 103, First Floor, Hall No. 1, Kesri, Wazirpur Industrial Ara Centre, Area, New Delhi – 110 035 E-2, Jhandewalan, (Pan: Aaffd1639M) New Delhi – 110 057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By : Sh. B.S. Rajpurohit, Sr. Dr. Assessee By : Sh. Ridhi Karan Agarwal, Ca

Section 271(l)(c) is leviable. Hence penalty is deleted. 9. As regards ground no.5 where the appellant has challenged the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(C) and has made submissions regarding non applicability of the said provisions on the addition made on account of disallowance u/s 40A(3

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6 (NOW CC-1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmajet Lite (India) Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 13, Community Central Circle-6, Centre, Yusuf Sarai, (Now Cc-1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcs4480L

u/s 40A(3), due to disallowance of the 20% of expenses, it can be seen that this addition has been re-added as a result of re- assessment order dt. 08.03.2000 where the following payments were found to be via cash and (were) in excess of the limit set by section 40A(3). These payments were not specified

M/S. HIND INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediam/S. Hind Industries Ltd, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of A-1, Okhla Industrial Area, Income Tax (Appeals)-Xv, Phase-1, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaach0870N Assessee By : None Revenue By: Mr. Waseem Arshad, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/08/2023

u/s 142(1) was asked to explain as to why cash purchases not be disallowed as per the provisions of section 40A(3) as was the treatment given to such cash purchases in AY 2004-05 to 2009-10. M/s. Hind Industries Ltd 4.3 In this regard the assessee in its reply stated that its case was covered by Rule

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NAGAR DAIRY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

penalty u/s 271(1)(c); though no separate addition was made considering the disallowance of higher amount on account of bogus purchases. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in adjudicating the addition made under section 40A(3

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NAGAR DAIRY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

penalty u/s 271(1)(c); though no separate addition was made considering the disallowance of higher amount on account of bogus purchases. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in adjudicating the addition made under section 40A(3

DCIT, GHAZIABAD vs. SHRI ALOK GARG, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 3386/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs Sh. Alok Garg, Circle-1, R-11/125, Raj Nagar, Gyhaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aarpg7151K Assessee By : Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 21.03.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A), Aligarh.

Section 40A(3) and to inflate its purchase bills. The Ld. A.O. had not proved any purchase to be bogus nor any contrary confirmation from any 3 Alok Garg creditor has been brought on record. Purchases are reflected in audited P & L A/c and are comparable with purchases in earlier years assessed u/s 143(3). 4. Assessee made labour payments

CIT vs. MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD

Bench: The Authorities Below Was With Regard To Tenability Of The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As „A.O.‟) In Levying A Penalty In The Sum Of Rs 21,34,200/- On The Assessee Under The Provisions Of Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short „I.T. Act‟). The

3) of the I.T. Act, the A.O. noted the explanation offered by the assessee in the form of response to the show cause notice issued in respect of those proceedings. The explanation offered by the assessee was as follows: “…..It is submitted that the assessee has paid a sum of Rs 15,50,000/- towards contribution to Bombay Telephone District

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue, are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act under identical circumstances observing as under:- “9. Learned Authorised Representative vehemently stated before us that cash payments have been made for purpose of purchase of Silver from MMTC to extent of Rs.24,24,212/- and balance payment of Rs.9,66,500/- is towards reimbursement of travel expenses to employees

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue, are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act under identical circumstances observing as under:- “9. Learned Authorised Representative vehemently stated before us that cash payments have been made for purpose of purchase of Silver from MMTC to extent of Rs.24,24,212/- and balance payment of Rs.9,66,500/- is towards reimbursement of travel expenses to employees

SS GROUP (P) LTD,HARYANA vs. ACIT CIRLCE-4(1), GURGAON, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarm/S. Ss Group (P) Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle 4 (1), Ss House, Plot No.77, Sector 44, Gurgaon. Sector 45, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aadcr8945B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2025 Date Of Order : 17.09.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 07.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Affirming The Penalty Order Dated 21.03.2022 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’).

40A(3) of the Act and had also bonafidely believed the same as not covered under the said section. 15. The assessee we hold ,cannot be charged with having concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of income so as to impose penalty u/s 271

TAPI JWIL JV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

40A(2)(b) and the ld. CIT(A) has also erred in determining the profit of the assessee @ 3.78% equal to the profit of one of the parties to the JV. Penalty u/s 271G: 11. Facts of the case are as under: The assessee M/s TAPI Prestressed Products Ltd. ('TPPL') and M/s JITF Water Infrastructure Ltd. ('JWIL') had entered into

TAPI JWIL JV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

40A(2)(b) and the ld. CIT(A) has also erred in determining the profit of the assessee @ 3.78% equal to the profit of one of the parties to the JV. Penalty u/s 271G: 11. Facts of the case are as under: The assessee M/s TAPI Prestressed Products Ltd. ('TPPL') and M/s JITF Water Infrastructure Ltd. ('JWIL') had entered into

ACIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI vs. UNITECH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

section 271(1)(c) - Held, yes [Paras 8- 10] [In favour of assessee] Though the above judgment, is in respect of penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) r.w.S 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the ratio decidendi is equally applicable to the fact of the present case with respect to addition made u/s 40A(3

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NAGAR DAIRY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, C.O. Nos. 24 & 25/Del/2016 filed by the assessee are allowed, accordingly the Assessment Orders dated 28

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

penalty u/s 271(1)(c); though no separate addition was made considering the disallowance of higher amount on account of bogus purchases. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in adjudicating the addition made under section 40A(3

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NAGAR DAIRY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, C.O. Nos. 24 & 25/Del/2016 filed by the assessee are allowed, accordingly the Assessment Orders dated 28

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

penalty u/s 271(1)(c); though no separate addition was made considering the disallowance of higher amount on account of bogus purchases. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in adjudicating the addition made under section 40A(3

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VATIKA CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

u/s 271(1)(c) is imposed on the assessee. The quantum of the penalty is computed as under: Income in respect of which inaccurate particulars have been furnished/concealed - Rs.52,36,845/- Tax sought to be evaded - Rs.18,32,895/- Minimum penalty imposable @ 100% - Rs.18,32,895/- Maximum penalty imposable @ 300% - Rs.54,98,685/- I hereby impose a minimum penalty

M/S. YUM! RESTAURANTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

penalty levied by Learned Income Tax Officer, New Delhi [ The ld Ao ] u/s 271 (1) ( c) of The Income Tax Act [ The Act] of INR 5,46,098/–, INR 9,42,692/– and Rs. 25,24,204/– are confirmed. 2. Briefly, facts can be culled out that appellant is a company incorporated under provisions of The Companies